FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.
London, Sunday.
With respect to the course of the Government, and their attitude towards the House and the Opposition, the Sunday Gazette says:—
‟THE FRANCHISE BILL.—No doubt some concessions will be made. It is said that the Conservatives, as a body, are willing to pass the Bill with an £8 borough and £20 county franchise. Now, the support of the Conservatives means passing the Bill this year; in other words, it ensures its adoption by the Lords. Lord Derby will not oppose what Lord Stanley and Mr. Disraeli have approved ; and, without Lord Derby, the work will have to be commenced de novo next year. Adullam is largely represented among the Whigs of the Upper House; and Lord Bessborough and Lord Foley would be able to show their chief but a poor anticipation of a division on the second reading. It becomes highly interesting, then, to know what terms the Conservatives will assent to, and what the Government will grant as a price for the immediate and peaceful settlement of the question. With regard to the statement that a £20 county and £8 borough franchise constitutes the Conservative ultimatum, we have some reason for thinking that this is an incorrect indication of the wishes of the party, the more especially as regards the counties. In the boroughs an £8 franchise would probably be accepted, but in the counties it is not the figure that is looked upon as the main point. We believe we are right in saying that the Conservatives will not object to the £14 county qualification proposed by the Government, provided that there be a distinct geographical division between the boroughs and tbe counties in which they are situate, for voting purposes. It was with this proviso that Lord Derby’s Government proposed to lower the county franchise to £10, and consistency would point to the party making it and not a money figure their stand-point upon the present occasion. In principle there is much to be said in favour of keeping the borough boundary line an effective barrier between the two kinds of franchises.
‟THE REDISTRIBUTION BILL.—Without professing to give an accurate account of the provisions of the Bill for the Redistribution of Seats for England and Wales, to be introduced to-morrow night, we believe we can indicate some of its leading features. No borough is to be absolutely disfranchised. Some will be grouped together; some now returning two members will lose one. By this process about fifty seats will be available, to be divided between large boroughs and counties The following boroughs are likely to be amalgamated, for electoral purposes, in some instances with each other, or with large existing constituencies, and in others with neighbouring towns now unenfranchised; and by this means, we believe, about eight to ten seats will be available:— Abingdon, Arundel, Bewdley, Brecknock, Calne, Christchurch, Dartmouth, Droitwich, Eye, Frome, Helston, Horsham, Launceston, Liskeard, Lyme, Malmesbury, Midhurst, Northallerton, Petersfield, Rye, Shaftesbury, Thirsk, Wallingford, Wareham, Westbury, Wilton, Woodstock. The schedule of those places will be docked of one member each, and, at the same time, subside into a portion only of a borough constituency, will, it is believed, include the following:—Andover, Bodmin, Bridgnorth, Bridport, Buckingham, Chichester, Chippenham, Cirencester, Cockermouth, Devizes, Dorchester, Evesham, Grantham, Harwich, Hertford, Honiton, Huntingdon, Leominster, Ludlow, Lymington, Malden, Malion, Marlborough, Marlow, Newport (I. W.), Richmond, Ripon, Stamford, Tamworth, Tavistock, Tewkesbury, Thetford, Wells, and Wycombe. Most of these localities will in future be known as but the designation of a group of boroughs, like the Welsh and Scotch and some few English—Sandwich and Penryn—at present. It is to remembered that the boroughs in the first list are represented by about an equal number of Liberal, and Conservative, and ‟Adullam” members, while the boroughs likely to lose one member each have 25 belonging to the former and 40 to the latter category.